Who do you think is the worst of the villains?

[T.o.b.y]

I have no problem with John shooting the cabbie - but then, I have no problem with Sherlock shooting Magnussen either. Especially since none of that happened in real life.

 

Unfortunately, we never found out enough about Mary's background to evaluate whether her killings as an assassin were comparable to John's killings as a soldier in a war zone. We just don't know enough about the jobs that she did.

 

In reality, I think all killing is wrong, I think war is wrong, I would have to be pretty desperate to work for the military and I don't even buy meat. But my standards for fiction are quite different :-D

 

It's the same with smoking, drinking and other drugs. In reality, I stay far away from all that but I love Sherlock the junkie and I think they should have just let him have his cigarettes.

[Boton]

I have no problem with John shooting the cabbie - but then, I have no problem with Sherlock shooting Magnussen either. Especially since none of that happened in real life.

 

Unfortunately, we never found out enough about Mary's background to evaluate whether her killings as an assassin were comparable to John's killings as a soldier in a war zone. We just don't know enough about the jobs that she did.

 

In reality, I think all killing is wrong, I think war is wrong, I would have to be pretty desperate to work for the military and I don't even buy meat. But my standards for fiction are quite different :-D

 

It's the same with smoking, drinking and other drugs. In reality, I stay far away from all that but I love Sherlock the junkie and I think they should have just let him have his cigarettes.

 

This is it in a nutshell. I feel exactly the same way, right down to Sherlock and his drugs.

 

I did/do have a problem with John shooting the cabbie, but less from a moral standpoint than a practical one - I still can't see how he would do this to save his flatmate, who he just met a few hours previously. That part doesn't hang together for me, and it seemed reckless on his part.

 

In general, I give secret service types a lot of leeway, at least in theory, because I think functioning civilized societies have to have a small cadre of people who clean up the intractable messes that the larger system can't take care of. For example, I wouldn't have had a problem with Mary's British equivalent shooting Magnussen, because he had constructed a way to terrorize people and destabilize governments, and it was all going to be legal until the day he snapped and really killed a lot of people. I mean, I'm fine with Sherlock doing it too, but it would have been nice and clean if a Mary type had swooped in on Mycroft's go and just dispatched the jerkwad while everyone watched, and then the whole crew had adjourned to finish their Yorkshire puddings or something.

[T.o.b.y]

That's what Mycroft should have done, imo. It seemed to me like taking care of the Magnussen problem was part of his responsibilities but he didn't do it because he found him useful in some way - perhaps he kept a few other unsavory people in check.

[Carol the Dabbler]

I did/do have a problem with John shooting the cabbie, but less from a moral standpoint than a practical one - I still can't see how he would do this to save his flatmate, who he just met a few hours previously. That part doesn't hang together for me, and it seemed reckless on his part.

 

I think it has to do with John  being a soldier.  He's used to being thrown together with a bunch of men he's never met before, and they're all expected to protect each other.  True, he's just met Sherlock, but Sherlock has accepted him at a time when nobody else was paying much attention to him.  And now Sherlock is in (apparently) imminent danger.

 

Besides, I think John is the sort of guy who'd make certain amount of effort to protect just about anybody that was being threatened.  That probably also goes with the soldier outlook, as regards protecting civilians.

[gerry]

That was exactly how I viewed John killing the cabbie. It wasn’t specific to Sherlock. I think he’d have done the same if anyone else was in Sherlock’s same position knowing how the cabbie killed the previous victims. He has cop mentality. I wouldn’t be surprised if Lestrade would have done the same as John too for the same reason.

 

Alternatively I don’t think that Sherlock or Mary did anything, murder or otherwise, for unselfish, altruistic reasons which is why I have hard time equating what John did with Sherlock or Mary.

[Artemis]

I think it has to do with John  being a soldier.  He's used to being thrown together with a bunch of men he's never met before, and they're all expected to protect each other.  True, he's just met Sherlock, but Sherlock has accepted him at a time when nobody else was paying much attention to him.  And now Sherlock is in (apparently) imminent danger.

 

Besides, I think John is the sort of guy who'd make certain amount of effort to protect just about anybody that was being threatened.  That probably also goes with the soldier outlook, as regards protecting civilians.

 

 

^ This.  (I was interrupted in the middle of posting the same thing, but you said it better anyway. )

 

 

[Artemis]

This was brought up in Molly's thread, but I didn't want to hijack the thread, so I thought I'd pose the question here.

On the subject of blackmail, how do we compare Magnussen to Irene?  Is what she does as "despicable" as what he does, and why or why not?

 

What about Sherlock?  Why does he seem to harbor less hatred for what Irene does than for what Magnussen does?  My thought was that it could be because she claims to be using her information for "protection," but is that really the case, and where is the line between the "power play" manner in which she uses (or doesn't use) the information she gathers vs. "a businessman, acquiring assets"?

 

Edit: It's interesting to note that even before he met her and learned that her reason was "protection," his response to her blackmail was "Know when you are beaten" and "Oo, this is getting rather fun!" vs. the more serious disgust and "This needs to be stopped" attitude we see in response to Magnussen's blackmail.

 

 

[T.o.b.y]

This was brought up in Molly's thread, but I didn't want to hijack the thread, so I thought I'd pose the question here.

 

On the subject of blackmail, how do we compare Magnussen to Irene? Is what she does as "despicable" as what he does, and why or why not?

 

What about Sherlock? Why does he seem to harbor less hatred for what Irene does than for what Magnussen does? My thought was that it could be because she claims to be using her information for "protection," but is that really the case, and where is the line between the "power play" manner in which she uses (or doesn't use) the information she gathers vs. "a businessman, acquiring assets"?

 

Edit: It's interesting to note that even before he met her and learned that her reason was "protection," his response to her blackmail was "Know when you are beaten" and "Oo, this is getting rather fun!" vs. the more serious disgust and "This needs to be stopped" attitude we see in response to Magnussen's blackmail.

That's a very interesting question and one I don't have an immediate answer to. You've given me something to think about. Thanks. I will get back to you... In the meantime, I am sure somebody else will something clever to say.

[gerry]

This was brought up in Molly's thread, but I didn't want to hijack the thread, so I thought I'd pose the question here.

 

On the subject of blackmail, how do we compare Magnussen to Irene? Is what she does as "despicable" as what he does, and why or why not?

 

What about Sherlock? Why does he seem to harbor less hatred for what Irene does than for what Magnussen does? My thought was that it could be because she claims to be using her information for "protection," but is that really the case, and where is the line between the "power play" manner in which she uses (or doesn't use) the information she gathers vs. "a businessman, acquiring assets"

See this is the problem for me with then end of ASIB. Even if Sherlock initially thought she was a damsel in distress in need of protection, wouldn’t the scenes on the plane and at Mycroft’s house have proved otherwise? She boasted of being a conspirator with Moriarty and of enjoying blackmailing Mycroft. She was certainly no damsel in distress but more of a manipulative woman enjoying her power over people so i never understood why Sherlock would have wanted to save her life or why you’re supposed to believe she has some power over him so when she’s brought up in episodes like TLD, I just roll my eyes. The reason for me in the difference in Sherlock’s attitude about them is that in one case he’s thinking with something other than the head above his shoulders.

[Carol the Dabbler]

My thoughts exactly.

And in addition to her sins mentioned above, that look-alike corpse just happened to be available at an awfully convenient time, didn't it?

[Carol the Dabbler]

That was exactly how I viewed John killing the cabbie. It wasn’t specific to Sherlock. I think he’d have done the same if anyone else was in Sherlock’s same position knowing how the cabbie killed the previous victims. He has cop mentality. I wouldn’t be surprised if Lestrade would have done the same as John too for the same reason.

 

Alternatively I don’t think that Sherlock or Mary did anything, murder or otherwise, for unselfish, altruistic reasons which is why I have hard time equating what John did with Sherlock or Mary.

 

I may agree with you regarding Mary (though it looks to me like Sherlock goaded her to shoot him, by taking the additional step that she had warned him not to take -- so part of the blame is his).  As for Sherlock shooting Magnussen, I believe that *can* be seen as altruistic:  He's well aware that there are multiple witnesses to what he's about to do, which can legally be construed only as murder, meaning that he is forfeiting his life as he has known it in order to protect his best friend and family.  (Not his fault that Mycroft got him off the hook, nor did he seem to expect that at the time.)

[Hikari]

 

I observe that Sherlock says Magnussen turns his stomach, but that Smith is dangerous and despicable. So on an emotional level, he hates CAM the most ... but on an intellectual level, he finds Smith to be the most monstrous ... ? Although to be honest, I suspect Sherlock of employing a little exaggeration :o in both descriptions ....

 

That's a good point; I think I feel the same way, and that's where I'm wavering a bit: One villain is worse to me on an intellectual level, and another is worse on an emotional level.

 

I think who Sherlock hates most is generally agreed on, but the original question as posed was a little different in my mind.

 

Which villain do you think is / was the worst?

I meant worst as in "baddest". Most villainous, most despicable, etc.

 

Would he say that Magnussen is the "worst, 'baddest', most villainous, most despicable," because he hates him?  He called Culverton "most despicable," which is why the question came to mind.

 

 

All of our villains are despicable in their own ways or else they wouldn't deserve the name 'villain'.  CAM and Culverton Smith were dastardly in their spheres . . but I still think Moriarty takes the (dubious) prize. 

 

Look at it this way:  all of CAM and Smith's victims had done *something* to put them in the villain's sights.  If not personally, than by extension via a close family member (Lady Smallwood).  Even if their 'crime' was just a hubris or a complacency which the villain took exception to.  As odious as these guys' activities were, they each operated within a set of boundaries, a personal code, even if they were the only ones who knew exactly what these boundaries and codes were.  They were criminal narcissists, but they were not mad.

 

Moriarty may as well be 'M for Mayhem'.  Moriarty lived to create anarchy through terror.  As essayed by the awfully adorable Andrew Scott, it's sometimes possible to view him as an impish prankster, who is doing these things because of his terrible childhood or because he ultimately desires the attention and favor of Sherlock Holmes.  But before AS and his adorable self appeared on the scene, let us remember just one of the heinous acts of which Moriarty was capable:  he blew up a defenseless old blind woman along with half her apartment building.  There had to be some grave collateral damage there.   By sheer scope of damage and numbers of innocent bodies, Moriarty is King of the Malfeasants.  Unchecked, he could have brought down the nation.   The others' nefarious interests were a lot more personal and more limited in scope.  He still gets my vote.

[gerry]

 

 

That was exactly how I viewed John killing the cabbie. It wasn’t specific to Sherlock. I think he’d have done the same if anyone else was in Sherlock’s same position knowing how the cabbie killed the previous victims. He has cop mentality. I wouldn’t be surprised if Lestrade would have done the same as John too for the same reason.

 

Alternatively I don’t think that Sherlock or Mary did anything, murder or otherwise, for unselfish, altruistic reasons which is why I have hard time equating what John did with Sherlock or Mary.

I may agree with you regarding Mary (though it looks to me like Sherlock goaded her to shoot him, by taking the additional step that she had warned him not to take -- so part of the blame is his). As for Sherlock shooting Magnussen, I believe that *can* be seen as altruistic: He's well aware that there are multiple witnesses to what he's about to do, which can legally be construed only as murder, meaning that he is forfeiting his life as he has known it in order to protect his best friend and family. (Not his fault that Mycroft got him off the hook, nor did he seem to expect that at the time.)

i wasn’t talking about her shooting Sherlock which I didn’t find to be altruistic either but her life as an assassin because it seemed for profit. Sherlock killed magnussen because he got outsmarted ultimately in that moment and it was an easy way to win after he lost the battle of wits which is why I didn’t find it to be for a moment of greater good otherwise he would have done it sooner.

[T.o.b.y]

 

This was brought up in Molly's thread, but I didn't want to hijack the thread, so I thought I'd pose the question here.

 

On the subject of blackmail, how do we compare Magnussen to Irene? Is what she does as "despicable" as what he does, and why or why not?

 

What about Sherlock? Why does he seem to harbor less hatred for what Irene does than for what Magnussen does? My thought was that it could be because she claims to be using her information for "protection," but is that really the case, and where is the line between the "power play" manner in which she uses (or doesn't use) the information she gathers vs. "a businessman, acquiring assets"?

 

Edit: It's interesting to note that even before he met her and learned that her reason was "protection," his response to her blackmail was "Know when you are beaten" and "Oo, this is getting rather fun!" vs. the more serious disgust and "This needs to be stopped" attitude we see in response to Magnussen's blackmail.

That's a very interesting question and one I don't have an immediate answer to. You've given me something to think about. Thanks. I will get back to you... In the meantime, I am sure somebody else will something clever to say.

I still can't come up with a good reason for why Sherlock despises Magnussen but thinks Irene is "rather fun" whereas both blackmail people and enjoy exerting power over their victims. Other than that Irene is a sexy lady while Magnussen is a creepy dude, that is.

 

I suppose if we knew more about the characters' backgrounds, we might learn something that excuses Irene's behavior in part but as the matter stands, well, I find it hard to defend her.

 

I guess that's rather the point, that his attraction to Irene clouds Sherlock's judgment. He is justified in staying away from this sort of thing in general because it does impair his ability to work as a detective.

 

Irene gets a very different visceral response out of me than Magnussen does too. I enjoy watching her, but then, I enjoy watching Moriarty too. It's like I said earlier, I have no good objective reason for putting Magnussen at the top of my worst villains list. Neither has Sherlock, I guess. It's a matter of feeling in both cases and a nice illustration of why feeling isn't a very good compass for people like Sherlock Holmes.

[gerry]

My thoughts exactly.

 

And in addition to her sins mentioned above, that look-alike corpse just happened to be available at an awfully convenient time, didn't it?

Precisely. She really is just as despicable as Magnussen. I highly doubt she considers any human collateral as part of her schemes, only herself. Do you think she’s really capable of having genuine feelings for Sherlock? I thought that she loved that she could manipulate Sherlock but I’m not sure she actually had genuine feelings for him.

[Arcadia]

This was brought up in Molly's thread, but I didn't want to hijack the thread, so I thought I'd pose the question here.

 

On the subject of blackmail, how do we compare Magnussen to Irene?  Is what she does as "despicable" as what he does, and why or why not?

 

What about Sherlock?  Why does he seem to harbor less hatred for what Irene does than for what Magnussen does?  My thought was that it could be because she claims to be using her information for "protection," but is that really the case, and where is the line between the "power play" manner in which she uses (or doesn't use) the information she gathers vs. "a businessman, acquiring assets"?

 

Edit: It's interesting to note that even before he met her and learned that her reason was "protection," his response to her blackmail was "Know when you are beaten" and "Oo, this is getting rather fun!" vs. the more serious disgust and "This needs to be stopped" attitude we see in response to Magnussen's blackmail.

 

Well, her blackmail is less disgusting to me too, and I think it's because hers was for her own protection, and in some sense it was a swap ... Mycroft got what he wanted, the phone, and she got what she wanted, safety. Whereas with Magnussen, he seemed to do it just because he could. And his was more personal, and more about controlling people, just because it pleased him. Of course, you could say something similar about Irene's profession, except that people actually hired her to dominate them ...

 

The reason for me in the difference in Sherlock’s attitude about them is that in one case he’s thinking with something other than the head above his shoulders.

 

Yup, I think that's rather the point.

 

 

That was exactly how I viewed John killing the cabbie. It wasn’t specific to Sherlock. I think he’d have done the same if anyone else was in Sherlock’s same position knowing how the cabbie killed the previous victims. He has cop mentality. I wouldn’t be surprised if Lestrade would have done the same as John too for the same reason.

 

Alternatively I don’t think that Sherlock or Mary did anything, murder or otherwise, for unselfish, altruistic reasons which is why I have hard time equating what John did with Sherlock or Mary.

 

I may agree with you regarding Mary (though it looks to me like Sherlock goaded her to shoot him, by taking the additional step that she had warned him not to take -- so part of the blame is his).  As for Sherlock shooting Magnussen, I believe that *can* be seen as altruistic:  He's well aware that there are multiple witnesses to what he's about to do, which can legally be construed only as murder, meaning that he is forfeiting his life as he has known it in order to protect his best friend and family.  (Not his fault that Mycroft got him off the hook, nor did he seem to expect that at the time.)

 

 

Huh. I just now recognized the parallel between Mary shooting Sherlock, and Norbury (almost) shooting Sherlock. In both cases he thought he could control the harmless little woman, and found out she could be just as deadly as the male of the species.

 

Looked at that way, Mary's death seems more fitting to me ... the second time around, she sacrificed herself, instead of protecting herself at someone else's expense. Which shows she became a little more human as a result of knowing John, same as Sherlock. Hmm. Nice.

 

But I still think the manner in which that story was told was trite and ham-handed, I can barely stand to watch it. :(

 

 

My thoughts exactly.

 

And in addition to her sins mentioned above, that look-alike corpse just happened to be available at an awfully convenient time, didn't it?

Precisely. She really is just as despicable as Magnussen. I highly doubt she considers any human collateral as part of her schemes, only herself. Do you think she’s really capable of having genuine feelings for Sherlock? I thought that she loved that she could manipulate Sherlock but I’m not sure she actually had genuine feelings for him.

 

At the end of TLD, I note that John says Irene "likes" Sherlock, not "loves". I think that's a fair assessment. I think both Irene and Sherlock enjoy the battle of wits, and that's their attraction to each other. Which I sort of get, because my "favorite" friends are people I can banter with ... we have to work to keep up with each other, if you see what I mean. It's fun, and stimulating.

 

With romantic attachments, though, I want the romance. But I imagine any physical attraction between Irene and Sherlock to be about the same as their intellectual attraction ... each trying to dominate the other. That's not genuine affection as this little goldfish understands it, but I suppose that's close enough for some people.

[gerry]

 

This was brought up in Molly's thread, but I didn't want to hijack the thread, so I thought I'd pose the question here.

 

On the subject of blackmail, how do we compare Magnussen to Irene? Is what she does as "despicable" as what he does, and why or why not?

 

What about Sherlock? Why does he seem to harbor less hatred for what Irene does than for what Magnussen does? My thought was that it could be because she claims to be using her information for "protection," but is that really the case, and where is the line between the "power play" manner in which she uses (or doesn't use) the information she gathers vs. "a businessman, acquiring assets"?

 

Edit: It's interesting to note that even before he met her and learned that her reason was "protection," his response to her blackmail was "Know when you are beaten" and "Oo, this is getting rather fun!" vs. the more serious disgust and "This needs to be stopped" attitude we see in response to Magnussen's blackmail.

Well, her blackmail is less disgusting to me too, and I think it's because hers was for her own protection...

why does her justifying it as protection matter when she likely needs it from her schemes with terrorists and other underworld types that she chose to have fun with? I mean if you’re going to swim with the sharks don’t be surprised if you get bitten. It always seems odd to believe she’s a damsel in distress needing protection when she enjoys manipulating people as much as she does. That seems to be the ultimate turn on for her...playing mind games with dangerous people.

[Boton]

 

I still can't come up with a good reason for why Sherlock despises Magnussen but thinks Irene is "rather fun" whereas both blackmail people and enjoy exerting power over their victims. Other than that Irene is a sexy lady while Magnussen is a creepy dude, that is.

 

I suppose if we knew more about the characters' backgrounds, we might learn something that excuses Irene's behavior in part but as the matter stands, well, I find it hard to defend her.

 

I guess that's rather the point, that his attraction to Irene clouds Sherlock's judgment. He is justified in staying away from this sort of thing in general because it does impair his ability to work as a detective.

 

Irene gets a very different visceral response out of me than Magnussen does too. I enjoy watching her, but then, I enjoy watching Moriarty too. It's like I said earlier, I have no good objective reason for putting Magnussen at the top of my worst villains list. Neither has Sherlock, I guess. It's a matter of feeling in both cases and a nice illustration of why feeling isn't a very good compass for people like Sherlock Holmes.

 

 

I abhor Magnussen, and I love Irene, and it doesn't have anything to do with attraction on my part, although I think it does on Sherlock's.

 

As Toby says, I think it depends on the characters' back stories, and on how the viewers have embroider their own head canon.

 

For me, I think CAM is a snake. I think he likes manipulating people for the sake of manipulating them, and it is a game for him to see who he can force into what behaviors, and the consequences be damned. His enjoyment of Lady Smallwood's discomfort was sexual, and his actions were the proximate cause of Lord Smallwood committing suicide. He says he can do that with whole countries, and I don't doubt it. He wants to be evil for the sake of being evil, and the law is on his side.

 

For Irene, the law is very much not on her side. Taking money for sexual services, even if it isn't technically prostitution or a brothel (and I think it would be considered such), is illegal, and she has cultivated a client list who can both harm her and protect her. If you assume that her biggest flaws (and they are big) are that she doesn't view sex work as immoral and that she's willing to use her connections to protect herself, that is still a far cry from her manipulating people to actually hurt them.  (As opposed to the play hurting that is her trade.) How she got caught up with Moriarty, I have no idea, but maybe he looked more like protection than like a criminal mastermind from where she sat.

 

 

 

At the end of TLD, I note that John says Irene "likes" Sherlock, not "loves". I think that's a fair assessment. I think both Irene and Sherlock enjoy the battle of wits, and that's their attraction to each other. Which I sort of get, because my "favorite" friends are people I can banter with ... we have to work to keep up with each other, if you see what I mean. It's fun, and stimulating.

 

With romantic attachments, though, I want the romance. But I imagine any physical attraction between Irene and Sherlock to be about the same as their intellectual attraction ... each trying to dominate the other. That's not genuine affection as this little goldfish understands it, but I suppose that's close enough for some people.

 

 

I've never thought that Sherlock and Irene had a romance. I think they have a sexual attraction; I think they have sex, quite bluntly. I don't think very much of it is cloaked behind her being an intellectual challenge or an adversary that's his match.  I think he's sexually attracted to her, he finds that fun, and he finds the intellectual sparring to be a bit of foreplay.

[Hikari]

 

 

I still can't come up with a good reason for why Sherlock despises Magnussen but thinks Irene is "rather fun" whereas both blackmail people and enjoy exerting power over their victims. Other than that Irene is a sexy lady while Magnussen is a creepy dude, that is.

 

I suppose if we knew more about the characters' backgrounds, we might learn something that excuses Irene's behavior in part but as the matter stands, well, I find it hard to defend her.

 

I guess that's rather the point, that his attraction to Irene clouds Sherlock's judgment. He is justified in staying away from this sort of thing in general because it does impair his ability to work as a detective.

 

Irene gets a very different visceral response out of me than Magnussen does too. I enjoy watching her, but then, I enjoy watching Moriarty too. It's like I said earlier, I have no good objective reason for putting Magnussen at the top of my worst villains list. Neither has Sherlock, I guess. It's a matter of feeling in both cases and a nice illustration of why feeling isn't a very good compass for people like Sherlock Holmes.

 

 

I abhor Magnussen, and I love Irene, and it doesn't have anything to do with attraction on my part, although I think it does on Sherlock's.

 

As Toby says, I think it depends on the characters' back stories, and on how the viewers have embroider their own head canon.

 

For me, I think CAM is a snake. I think he likes manipulating people for the sake of manipulating them, and it is a game for him to see who he can force into what behaviors, and the consequences be damned. His enjoyment of Lady Smallwood's discomfort was sexual, and his actions were the proximate cause of Lord Smallwood committing suicide. He says he can do that with whole countries, and I don't doubt it. He wants to be evil for the sake of being evil, and the law is on his side.

 

For Irene, the law is very much not on her side. Taking money for sexual services, even if it isn't technically prostitution or a brothel (and I think it would be considered such), is illegal, and she has cultivated a client list who can both harm her and protect her. If you assume that her biggest flaws (and they are big) are that she doesn't view sex work as immoral and that she's willing to use her connections to protect herself, that is still a far cry from her manipulating people to actually hurt them.  (As opposed to the play hurting that is her trade.) How she got caught up with Moriarty, I have no idea, but maybe he looked more like protection than like a criminal mastermind from where she sat.

 

 

 

At the end of TLD, I note that John says Irene "likes" Sherlock, not "loves". I think that's a fair assessment. I think both Irene and Sherlock enjoy the battle of wits, and that's their attraction to each other. Which I sort of get, because my "favorite" friends are people I can banter with ... we have to work to keep up with each other, if you see what I mean. It's fun, and stimulating.

 

With romantic attachments, though, I want the romance. But I imagine any physical attraction between Irene and Sherlock to be about the same as their intellectual attraction ... each trying to dominate the other. That's not genuine affection as this little goldfish understands it, but I suppose that's close enough for some people.

 

 

I've never thought that Sherlock and Irene had a romance. I think they have a sexual attraction; I think they have sex, quite bluntly. I don't think very much of it is cloaked behind her being an intellectual challenge or an adversary that's his match.  I think he's sexually attracted to her, he finds that fun, and he finds the intellectual sparring to be a bit of foreplay.

 

 

Would Sherlock Holmes even recognize sexual attraction if it hit him over his great big head?  Or know what to do with it if he did?  The attractiveness of intellectual sparring feels natural to Holmes, but the idea that somewhere in London (or elsewhere in the world depending on the Woman's witness protection scheme) she and Sherlock are having torrid clandestine mattress encounters just really doesn't compute.  Sexual attraction is mostly in the brain, they say, and that's where SH would tend to keep it, methinks.  Anything else would be too . . . messy. 

 

In his last encounter with the Woman which we are privy to, she mocks him with Moriarty's taunt . .'The Holmes boys . .the Iceman . . and the Virgin.'  Presumably if she'd taken care of Sherl's status beforehand, this jibe would no longer apply.  So they hadn't had sex up til then . . do you propose that Sherl found her, post-desert almost beheading encounter and they got it on.  You say 'have sex' . . as in, an ongoing pattern?  I don't see it, myself.  I think their only communication is via text message.  In her own way, Irene is faithful--she's sending him Happy Birthday texts from wherever she is, so she's remembered more about him than even Watson was ever told.  And in Sherlock's world, this is what passes for sentiment:  He has never deleted her text notification signature.  For Sherlock Holmes, that's as romantic as he gets.

[Arcadia]

 

Well, her blackmail is less disgusting to me too, and I think it's because hers was for her own protection...

why does her justifying it as protection matter when she likely needs it from her schemes with terrorists and other underworld types that she chose to have fun with? I mean if you’re going to swim with the sharks don’t be surprised if you get bitten. It always seems odd to believe she’s a damsel in distress needing protection when she enjoys manipulating people as much as she does. That seems to be the ultimate turn on for her...playing mind games with dangerous people.

 

 

Well, I guess the difference for me is that Irene's goal is not to harm or possess people. CAM's is.

 

How she got caught up with Moriarty, I have no idea, but maybe he looked more like protection than like a criminal mastermind from where she sat.

According to Irene, she had all this "stuff" but didn't know what to do with it, so she "consulted" with Jim. I rather suspect Jim had an agenda of his own that didn't necessarily match hers, however....

 

I've never thought that Sherlock and Irene had a romance. I think they have a sexual attraction; I think they have sex, quite bluntly. I don't think very much of it is cloaked behind her being an intellectual challenge or an adversary that's his match.  I think he's sexually attracted to her, he finds that fun, and he finds the intellectual sparring to be a bit of foreplay.

But why her, specifically, and not the prostitute on the corner? I thought the point of their story was he found her attractive because she "beat" him; that's what makes her "the one." Other women bore him simply because they are only (to his rather austere mind) about sex. I have no idea whether they're getting it on physically or not (she is gay, after all), but that seems almost beside the point, to me. The attraction is the challenge they present to each other, imo; the sex, if it exists, is just another expression of that.

[Boton]

 

 

Would Sherlock Holmes even recognize sexual attraction if it hit him over his great big head?  Or know what to do with it if he did?  The attractiveness of intellectual sparring feels natural to Holmes, but the idea that somewhere in London (or elsewhere in the world depending on the Woman's witness protection scheme) she and Sherlock are having torrid clandestine mattress encounters just really doesn't compute.  Sexual attraction is mostly in the brain, they say, and that's where SH would tend to keep it, methinks.  Anything else would be too . . . messy. 

 

In his last encounter with the Woman which we are privy to, she mocks him with Moriarty's taunt . .'The Holmes boys . .the Iceman . . and the Virgin.'  Presumably if she'd taken care of Sherl's status beforehand, this jibe would no longer apply.  So they hadn't had sex up til then . . do you propose that Sherl found her, post-desert almost beheading encounter and they got it on.  You say 'have sex' . . as in, an ongoing pattern?  I don't see it, myself.  I think their only communication is via text message.  In her own way, Irene is faithful--she's sending him Happy Birthday texts from wherever she is, so she's remembered more about him than even Watson was ever told.  And in Sherlock's world, this is what passes for sentiment:  He has never deleted her text notification signature.  For Sherlock Holmes, that's as romantic as he gets.

 

 

Oh, I disagree entirely!  (Isn't it fun?)

 

First of all, I don't personally buy the idea that sexual attraction is mostly in the brain, unless you mean that the primal urges originate in a primal area of our heads.  Most people experience what I think is today being called "primary sexual attraction." You see someone, and your heart races a little, and blood rushes to some pleasant places, and it spurs you on to want to get to know them intellectually or whatever cut off you use for sexual engagement.  I personally dislike the idea that Sherlock Holmes is so cerebral that he has managed to wall off basic biology and can't experience any kind of arousal without an IQ test involved.  Mycroft, maybe, but I tend to think he's more intellectually disciplined.

 

Second, I don't for one. single. second. think that Sherlock was a virgin when Mycroft called him one.  Inexperienced? Yeah.  Untouched? No way. I'm not sure when I think Sherlock and Irene most recently had sex, but I do think at least after Karachi, they met up semi-regularly and blow off some steam.  

 

 

Arcadia said:

But why her, specifically, and not the prostitute on the corner? I thought the point of their story was he found her attractive because she "beat" him; that's what makes her "the one." Other women bore him simply because they are only (to his rather austere mind) about sex. I have no idea whether they're getting it on physically or not (she is gay, after all), but that seems almost beside the point, to me. The attraction is the challenge they present to each other, imo; the sex, if it exists, is just another expression of that.

 

Oh, the intellectual stuff may be the tipping point, but it is a lot of things.  The way she carries herself.  The fact that she will take him on and spar with him. The fact that she's just a little socially unacceptable too. 

 

I think, for me, I am not interested in a Sherlock Holmes who is completely about the mind, and for whom everything can be distilled down into intellect first and every other instinct a poor second.  The body as transport?  That's bull.  He *wants* to believe that; he disciplines himself to think that any time he's on a case, he has no bodily needs, but look at him.  The guy is walking around with a packet of greasy chips; he is willing to take drugs, which is surely partially to seek pleasure; and you can't tell me that he doesn't experience arousal and attraction.  

 

I get wound up about this, I suppose, because it is such a stereotype of intelligent people: we must all need intellectual stimulation all the time or we aren't interested.  I just don't buy it for most intelligent people, and I don't buy it for Sherlock Holmes either.  He would be mighty boring to me if I confined him purely to the life of the mind.

[gerry]

 

 

Well, her blackmail is less disgusting to me too, and I think it's because hers was for her own protection...

why does her justifying it as protection matter when she likely needs it from her schemes with terrorists and other underworld types that she chose to have fun with? I mean if you’re going to swim with the sharks don’t be surprised if you get bitten. It always seems odd to believe she’s a damsel in distress needing protection when she enjoys manipulating people as much as she does. That seems to be the ultimate turn on for her...playing mind games with dangerous people.

Well, I guess the difference for me is that Irene's goal is not to harm or possess people. CAM's is.

Out of curiosity what makes you think that’s her goal? We know she has no trouble blackmailing people while using her body/sex to do it, conspiring with the likes of terrorists/Moriarty and drugging people. There also was the dead body double.

[Arcadia]

Hmm, good question. Probably a lot of reasons, but what comes to mind at the moment is the lines each character is given; Irene talks about knowing what people like, for instance, while CAM talks about "owning" people. Irene talks about wanting protection; CAM talks about doing things to people just because he can.

 

There's also behavioral things ... Irene makes herself available, but CAM forces himself on people. Things like that. I'm sure there's more, but I'm so sleepy I can't think of them right now.

[Hikari]

 

 

 

Would Sherlock Holmes even recognize sexual attraction if it hit him over his great big head?  Or know what to do with it if he did?  The attractiveness of intellectual sparring feels natural to Holmes, but the idea that somewhere in London (or elsewhere in the world depending on the Woman's witness protection scheme) she and Sherlock are having torrid clandestine mattress encounters just really doesn't compute.  Sexual attraction is mostly in the brain, they say, and that's where SH would tend to keep it, methinks.  Anything else would be too . . . messy. 

 

In his last encounter with the Woman which we are privy to, she mocks him with Moriarty's taunt . .'The Holmes boys . .the Iceman . . and the Virgin.'  Presumably if she'd taken care of Sherl's status beforehand, this jibe would no longer apply.  So they hadn't had sex up til then . . do you propose that Sherl found her, post-desert almost beheading encounter and they got it on.  You say 'have sex' . . as in, an ongoing pattern?  I don't see it, myself.  I think their only communication is via text message.  In her own way, Irene is faithful--she's sending him Happy Birthday texts from wherever she is, so she's remembered more about him than even Watson was ever told.  And in Sherlock's world, this is what passes for sentiment:  He has never deleted her text notification signature.  For Sherlock Holmes, that's as romantic as he gets.

 

 

Oh, I disagree entirely!  (Isn't it fun?)

 

First of all, I don't personally buy the idea that sexual attraction is mostly in the brain, unless you mean that the primal urges originate in a primal area of our heads.  Most people experience what I think is today being called "primary sexual attraction." You see someone, and your heart races a little, and blood rushes to some pleasant places, and it spurs you on to want to get to know them intellectually or whatever cut off you use for sexual engagement.  I personally dislike the idea that Sherlock Holmes is so cerebral that he has managed to wall off basic biology and can't experience any kind of arousal without an IQ test involved.  Mycroft, maybe, but I tend to think he's more intellectually disciplined.

 

Second, I don't for one. single. second. think that Sherlock was a virgin when Mycroft called him one.  Inexperienced? Yeah.  Untouched? No way. I'm not sure when I think Sherlock and Irene most recently had sex, but I do think at least after Karachi, they met up semi-regularly and blow off some steam.  

 

 

Arcadia said:

But why her, specifically, and not the prostitute on the corner? I thought the point of their story was he found her attractive because she "beat" him; that's what makes her "the one." Other women bore him simply because they are only (to his rather austere mind) about sex. I have no idea whether they're getting it on physically or not (she is gay, after all), but that seems almost beside the point, to me. The attraction is the challenge they present to each other, imo; the sex, if it exists, is just another expression of that.

 

Oh, the intellectual stuff may be the tipping point, but it is a lot of things.  The way she carries herself.  The fact that she will take him on and spar with him. The fact that she's just a little socially unacceptable too. 

 

I think, for me, I am not interested in a Sherlock Holmes who is completely about the mind, and for whom everything can be distilled down into intellect first and every other instinct a poor second.  The body as transport?  That's bull.  He *wants* to believe that; he disciplines himself to think that any time he's on a case, he has no bodily needs, but look at him.  The guy is walking around with a packet of greasy chips; he is willing to take drugs, which is surely partially to seek pleasure; and you can't tell me that he doesn't experience arousal and attraction.  

 

I get wound up about this, I suppose, because it is such a stereotype of intelligent people: we must all need intellectual stimulation all the time or we aren't interested.  I just don't buy it for most intelligent people, and I don't buy it for Sherlock Holmes either.  He would be mighty boring to me if I confined him purely to the life of the mind.

 

 

Speaking as one intellectual to another . . I agree that being just a huge brain tethered to a meat sack on legs for transport is not a realistic mode for real people.  Even the brainy get horny, I agree.

 

But Sherlock Holmes isn't just a regular exemplar of a brainy type.  His dedication to intellectual discipline is akin to that of a dedicated religious living in a monastery.  His monastery is his Mind Palace.  Any possessor of a human body is prone to its urges and weaknesses; the difference between a dedicated celibate in God's service or Sherlock Holmes and regular people is that they have trained themselves onto a higher plane so as to not give in to those urges which are injurious to their meditation.  Sherlock is singularly dedicated to the Meditation of Science.   Sherlock Holmes no doubt wakes up in the morning with the same biological imperatives as any other human male in his physical prime.  He ignores it, because it does not serve his higher purposes.

 

Is this realistically achievable for common people, every day?  No--but then SH is neither common, nor, it pains me to point out . . real.  So he's got a lot more latitude for ignoring his bodily needs than we do.  If a real guy ate as little as Sherlock Holmes does, he'd starve to death, not to mention the Almost Never Sleeping.

 

Benedict brings a more accessible contemporary human masculinity to Holmes. He is not an ascetic like Sir Arthur's Holmes.   He is appealing to us in a physical sense and so the idea that *this* Holmes is much more of a readily sexual creature than his Victorian counterpart is easier to accept.  Apparently a lot of people think that Sherl and John barely ever leave the flat on account of all the rumpy pumpy they are getting up to.  But I still disagree that a *more* human Holmes is as indiscriminate in his carnal impulses as is considered typical for a Yuppie male of his age.

 

I think that Holmes did have an affaire de coeur with the Woman, at a time in his life when he'd hung up his Consulting Detective hat for a while.  Perhaps our modern-day couple met up during SH's absence from London--though to have done so would have put them both at grave risk, and it doesn't seem like Sherl would have done anything to jeopardize her safety, even if he didn't care about his own.  After all, they were both supposed to be dead.  Being seen together by the wrong persons would have been a tad awkward.  For me, a brief and cherished encounter is possible; an ongoing thing where they meet up to have sex all the time?  Not so much. 

 

My objection to this contemporary Adler is that I don't consider her good enough for Sherlock.  She's got a sharp wit and can keep pace with him intellectually, but her intellectual gifts have been curdled by self-interest.  Her moral barometer is nil.  Irene looks out for #1 at all times.  SH may be attracted to her, but I think he'd also be too repelled in his core by her active collusion with Moriarty to be intimate with her.  He acknowledges perhaps that he finds her exciting--but it's the same kind of toxic fascination he has for the cocaine needle--thrilling but bad for him.  So he puts them both on a shelf as it were where he can vicariously enjoy them from a distance.  An occasional flirty text, yeah.  Swapping bodily fluids as a regular thing?  Can't see it.  Our girl is a bit of a moral swamp . . we don't want our hero wading into there, and I don't believe that he would sell his soul like that just to get his rocks off.  I like my Sherlock Holmes to be just a bit shinier and more noble than the rest of us, and if that makes me wrong, I prefer not to be right.

 

[Boton]

Our girl is a bit of a moral swamp . . we don't want our hero wading into there, and I don't believe that he would sell his soul like that just to get his rocks off.  I like my Sherlock Holmes to be just a bit shinier and more noble than the rest of us, and if that makes me wrong, I prefer not to be right.

 

 

And doesn't that make the discussion fun?   :D